IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v159y2017icp46-52.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Random categorization and bounded rationality

Author

Listed:
  • Aguiar, Victor H.

Abstract

In this study we introduce a new stochastic choice rule that categorizes objects in order to simplify the choice procedure. At any given trial, the decision maker deliberately randomizes over mental categories and chooses the best item according to her utility function within the realized consideration set formed by the intersection of the mental category and the menu of alternatives. If no alternative is present both within the considered mental category and within the menu the decision maker picks the default option. We provide the necessary and sufficient conditions that characterize this model in a complete stochastic choice dataset in the form of an acyclicity restriction on a stochastic choice revealed preference and other regularity conditions. We recover the utility function uniquely up to a monotone transformation and the probability distribution over mental categories uniquely. This model is able to accommodate violations of IIA (independence of irrelevant alternatives), of stochastic transitivity, and of the Manzini–Mariotti menu independence notion (i-Independence).

Suggested Citation

  • Aguiar, Victor H., 2017. "Random categorization and bounded rationality," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 46-52.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:159:y:2017:i:c:p:46-52
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2017.07.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176517302860
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Daisuke Nakajima & Erkut Y. Ozbay, 2012. "Revealed Attention," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2183-2205, August.
    2. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2012. "Categorize Then Choose: Boundedly Rational Choice And Welfare," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 10(5), pages 1141-1165, October.
    3. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2014. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 1153-1176, May.
    4. Guney, Begum & Richter, Michael, 2015. "An experiment on aspiration-based choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 512-526.
    5. Drew Fudenberg & Ryota Iijima & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2015. "Stochastic Choice and Revealed Perturbed Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 2371-2409, November.
    6. Swait, Joffre & Brigden, Neil & Johnson, Richard D., 2014. "Categories shape preferences: A model of taste heterogeneity arising from categorization of alternatives," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 3-23.
    7. Georgios Gerasimou, 2016. "Partially dominant choice," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 61(1), pages 127-145, January.
    8. Chateauneuf, Alain & Jaffray, Jean-Yves, 1989. "Some characterizations of lower probabilities and other monotone capacities through the use of Mobius inversion," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 263-283, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:eee:matsoc:v:93:y:2018:i:c:p:52-56 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Victor H. Aguiar & Maria Jose Boccardi & Nail Kashaev & Jeongbin Kim, 2018. "Does Random Consideration Explain Behavior when Choice is Hard? Evidence from a Large-scale Experiment," Papers 1812.09619, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2019.
    3. repec:eee:mateco:v:81:y:2019:i:c:p:74-83 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Victor H. Aguiar & Nail Kashaev, 2019. "Discrete Choice and Welfare Analysis with Unobserved Choice Sets," Papers 1907.04853, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2019.
    5. Nail Kashaev & Natalia Lazzati, 2019. "Peer Effects in Random Consideration Sets," Papers 1904.06742, arXiv.org.
    6. Matthew Ryan, 2019. "Generalised Random Categorisation Rules," Working Papers 2019-03, Auckland University of Technology, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Decision theory; Random choice; Bounded rationality; Categorization; Consideration sets;

    JEL classification:

    • C60 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - General
    • D10 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:159:y:2017:i:c:p:46-52. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.